This full-field image of the nearby dwarf galaxy NGC 4214 taken with NASA's Hubble Space Telescope is shown as released by NASA May 12, 2011. The Hubble image reveals a sequence of steps in the formation and evolution of stars and star clusters, evident in the glowing gas surrounding bright stellar clusters.

They found that the rate of star formation has decreased to such an extent that only 5% more stars than those that exist today will be produced in the remaining lifespan of the Universe.

David Sobral of Leiden University, the lead author of the study, tells TIME that the astronomers looked for a certain indicator—the H-alpha photons emitted by hydrogen atoms when a star forms—in their hunt for data “from stranger and smaller galaxies.”

They compiled snapshots of star-forming galaxies from different points of time in the Universe’s life span — at 2, 4, 6 and 9 billion years old — which took five years to put together. According to Sobral, “all of the action in the Universe occurred billions of years ago,” with half of all stars that ever existed created more than nine billion years ago and the remaining half created since then.

“You need the gas to become dense and cool enough to form stars. It’s true that when a supernova explodes, it helps, through shockwaves, to make the gas dense to trigger star formation. But if the explosion is too energetic, it can blow the gas out of the galaxy.”

The real conundrum for astronomers is explaining this phenomenon. “There is a big question in terms of really understanding why this is happening,” says Sobral. “It seems that the specifics of gas cooling and becoming dense is much harder now than it was many million years ago.”

Sobral and his colleagues are now looking at the selective samples to study the environment in which stars were formed to see how it has changed, if indeed it has, over time.

He also has comforting words for those saddened by the prospect of a future with fewer stars:

“This could be interpreted as quite depressing, but if you think about it, one of the reasons why we are around is because the rate of star formation is so low. If you were to maintain a steady trend of star production there is almost no chance that a planet like ours could survive.”

Sobral adds that the number of stars in our own galaxy, the Milky Way, is quite high. Given that even the shortest lifespan of stars runs into the billions of years, it will be a very long time indeed before we see the last star being born.

We can see only a slice of the universe. The speed of light is a limit. All we can know is what we find in our slice. We cannot be sure what is beyond our slice in extent or content. We are assuming that what we see continues beyond our vision slice. And it might. Or, it might not. We cannot know.

All of this is based upon assumptions derived from the Big Bang Theory, their effect upon our understanding of our admitedly very limited observations of the observable universe, and a number of further assumptions that are then derived from those assumptions.....though, without a long enough 'base line' from which to use the "parallax method" to measure distance to another object, we cannot know for certain where exactly - how far away, or what is really, and for absolute certain, 'next to what' - anything really is; as measurements beyond 30,000,000 Light Years are not possible at this time (That's using the width of the Solar System itself, by taking photos six months apart with the same scope, as a 'base line'); and, when you consider that the universe contains so much 'missing mass' - which could be cold, dark, ordinary matter that will someday become stars that no one is counting on, NOW - as well as the fact that stars are known to be pumping out Carbon Nano Tubes, which must thus fill outter space, and, since the undergo "stimulated emission" - with the intense ultraviolet light in interstellar space stimulating them to re-emit a POWERFUL MICROWAVE SIGNAL AT 3.7 K!!! - That relatively recent discovery may just be the "death knell" for the Old Big Bang (Awwwww.....Father LeMatres "Cosmic Humpty-Dumpty" MAY JUST HAVE FALLEN!)

They talk through their hats. The Universe is not lock-stepping in common time. Impossible. The chronology they attribute to the whole of existence is the sequence ordered by an observer viewing the cosmos from the location of the Earth and Milky Way. Time is a relative measure so from any other location the sequence and the perceived intervals between the events in that sequence may vary. The sequence may even be reversed if the location is polar. Indefinite number of variations is possible all strictly depending on the location of the observer. That is relativity flagrantly violated, ignored and paid lip-service to by the naive adherents of the creationist big bunk cosmogony. Impossible and highly irrational.

It doesn't disprove it, quite the opposite: it completely agrees with the article, and was only written in that way because the author was misled by a title and his initial interpretation. This article should not be read as being about the Universe *shutting down* (in the sense that production is now or will soon be 0.0). It's about producing much less than before and with that being likely to continue. But based on the findings here the Universe will form stars for trillions of years - just at a continuously declining rate (but never actually reaching 0!)Just read the comments and the discussion: e.g. this study allows you to quantify things for the next trillion years (so you don't just write qualitative titles); it predicts *18 million more stars will exist* per co-moving cubic Megaparsec when compared to today. That seems a lot, but now do the ratio between then and now: what do you get? 3.6 % more stars. Now wait forever if you want to get close to the 5% increase mentioned. If you multiply by a really large volume in the Universe you will have an even larger number of new stars. So actually, the title of the blog entry should be “the Universe will have millions of new stars for trillions of years (per Mpc^3)!”, then add *but that is fully consistent with the maximal 5% increase compared to what exists today!".

shut your eyes, aim your head at a field of grass blink your eyes open and shut instantly, now tell me the rate of grass growth. Will this field keep growing? Do you project a decline or increase in grass growth over all across the earth?

The total number of projected stars in the observable universe is 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 300 sextillion. 5% future production either way isn't going to mean all that much to folks in the next 13.5 billion years, but more importantly is the number of projected supernovae that will actually predict the future of new star formation.

dont like the fact those astrologers opinion on whats going on with stars creation of the universe because they dont know how big it is they have the w map of heat of the universe they might compare the previews map to latest one to have an estimate just wrong that is just a heat map by measure light variation they think can tell everything about the universe.

I think it’s great that science is always pushing boundaries to further understanding. However....This is a possibility not a guarantee. Just think.... Spontaneous generation was a sound scientific theory, however it has been kicked to the roadside (rightly so) We are still in our infinite stages of understanding the universe and it still has much to show us.

Or the THEORY of electromagnetism, or the THEORY of plate tectonics, or the germ THEORY of disease or quantum THEORY or ...

Get the drift? Perhaps you should educate yourself about the scientific definition of theory (hint: it doesn't mean "educated guess") before spouting off about it. Theories are the bedrock of science. Nothing is ever proven, everything is provisional, because newer and better evidence may always come along.

I think this is weakly based and farfetched; although it makes logical sense, it's just that our universe has SO MUCH going on, now device could excogitate our entire universe; most of all the number of stars.

Wow, nice comments in here. Such a wonderful blend of snide political commentary, "hilarious" sarcasm, and cynical know-it-all know-nothings. I'm sure it's very rewarding for article's author to see the intelligent discussion unfold.

@FawzyHalawzy This doesn't mean anything regarding "the end". In fact, even if the decline in the "cosmic star formation" continues infinitely into the future, the Universe will still form dozens of millions of news stars over the next trillions of years or so in each cube of 1 cubic light-years (with this actually taking into account the fact that the Universe is expanding, so volumes across time are actually comparable). But there are so many stars in the Universe already that even dozens of millions of stars will just be a "tiny" increase of just a few (~5) percent.

@SamDiggs Almost every single thing we can see with our own eyes in a nice night sky is within our galaxy, and also really nearby (so even stars at more distant positions within our galaxy are hard to see with our own eyes). So even if you could travel way into the future to a position comparable to what the Earth occupies now (as if you travel way too much into the future the Sun would have "swallowed" our Earth), you should still be able to stare at a really nice night sky with plenty of stars (even if nothing could be seen outside our ["upgraded"] Milky-Wayndromeda galaxy).